2025:JHHC:25691 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 5671 of 2009 ------- Ram Jeet Roy, son of late Rambrit Roy, resident of Village Salempur, P.O. & P.S. Sandesh, District Bhojpur (Bihar), presently posted as Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division, Sahibganj, At. & P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand). ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand. 2. The Jharkhand State Information Commission through its Secretary, having its office at Engineer’s Hostel No. 2, H.E.C. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The State Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Engineer’s Hostel No. 2, H.E.C. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. Sidheshwar Mandal, father’s name not known to the petitioner, General Secretary, Zila Jansuchna Adhikari Manch, office at Chhota Pachgarh (Main Road), Sahibganj, P.S. & P.O. Chhota Pachgarh, Dist. Sahibganj. ……….. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, Amicus Curiae For the Resp.-J.S.I.C.: Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate ---- 12/ 27.08.2025 The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.07.2009 and 26.08.2009, passed by respondent No. 3 under the power vested in it under Section 20(i)(ii) and 19(8)(B) of the Right to Information Act, whereby a fine of Rs.20,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner for not supplying the correct information to respondent No. 4. 2. Learned Amicus Curiae tries to impress this Court by submitting that the petitioner had joined to the post of Executive Engineer Rural Development Special Division, Sahibganj recently and 2025:JHHC:25691 2 he was not aware of the proceedings going on before the Information Commissioner. 3. Ld. Amicus further contended that from records it clearly transpire that the Petitioner joined on 12.2.2009; whereas the application for information was filed 3.10.2008 and as such, the obligation for supplying the information under section 7 of the R.T.I. Act was upon his predecessor and as such, for default committed by the predecessor of the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been punished. Learned Amicus Curiae further argues that the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-5 and 7 cannot be sustained in law in view of the fact that the desired information has been furnished as provided under section 7(1) of the R.T.I. Act. 4. She further submits that before passing the punishment order, the petitioner ought to have been provided ample opportunity of hearing to defend his case. In absence of the same, the impugned order being violative of cardinal principle of natural justice is not tenable in the eyes of law and fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Amicus Curiae further argues that the order of punishment has already been passed vide order dated 24.07.2009 before issuing notice to show cause as contemplated u/s 20 of the R.T.I. Act. The impugned order dated 26.8.2009 is mere a formality as petitioner has been punished vide order dated 24.07.2009 that too without issuing notice and without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as provided under section 20(1) of the R.T.I. Act. 6. She further contended that the appeal was decided by the State Information Commission sitting singly, in absence of the Chief Information Commissioner, as such same is non est in the eyes of law. The Respondent No.3 is duty bound before passing the order under Section 20 of the R. T.I. Act to ascertain as to whether notice to show cause issued under Section 20 of the R.T.I. Act has been served upon the Public Information Officer or not and without ascertaining the said 2025:JHHC:25691 3 fact, the impugned order can be said to be violative of Principles of natural justice and against the mandatory Provision of section 20 of the R.T.I. Act. 7. She lastly submits that from bare perusal of the impugned order it would be evident that the same has been passed only on the ground of non-appearance of the petitioner before the commission on the fixed date and as such the petitioner does not come under any of the inaction as provided under section 20(2) of the R.T.I. Act and as such by imposing penalty and recommending for initiating Departmental Disciplinary proceedings, the learned State Information Commissioner has exceeded his Jurisdiction, therefore the same are fit to be quashed. 8. In support of her contention, learned Amicus Curiae relied upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of W.P.(S). No. 5779 of 2013 (Sandhya Mundu Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand State Information Commission submits that there is no error in the impugned orders, inasmuch as, several opportunities were given to the petitioner, however, he did not attend the proceeding of appeal and as a matter of fact, the impugned orders depict the dates given in the appeal; as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 10. Having heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand State Information Commission, it appears that the petitioner was not at all serious during the entire proceeding. As matter of fact, in the instant writ application also he failed to take care; forced with this situation, Amicus Curiae was appointed to assist the Court. 11. After going through the impugned order, the ground of non- compliance of principles of natural justice is not sustainable in view of the fact that impugned orders itself reflect several dates which were granted in the proceeding and ultimately, the impugned orders were 2025:JHHC:25691 4 passed. Further, there is no perversity in the impugned orders; as such instant application stands dismissed. 12. Before parting with this case, I must record that I have got able assistance from the learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, and she shall be entitled for her admissible fees from the JHALSA, Ranchi. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi, for the needful. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Kunal